PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid Networks
draft-ietf-pce-flexible-grid-10
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Young Lee , Haomian Zheng , Ramon Casellas , Ricard Vilalta , Daniele Ceccarelli , Francesco Lazzeri | ||
| Last updated | 2024-07-05 (Latest revision 2023-03-07) | ||
| Replaces | draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-pce-flexible-grid-10
PCE Working Group Y. Lee
Internet-Draft Samsung
Intended status: Standards Track H. Zheng
Expires: 6 January 2025 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
R. Casellas
R. Vilalta
CTTC
D. Ceccarelli
Cisco
F. Lazzeri
Ericsson
July 2024
PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid Networks
draft-ietf-pce-flexible-grid-10
Abstract
This document provides the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Spectrum
Assignment (RSA) in Flexible Grid networks.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 January 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. 4. Spectrum Assignment (SA) Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Frequency-Slot Selection TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Frequency-slot Restriction Constraint TLV . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Frequency-Slot Restriction Field . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Encoding of a RSA Path Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Error Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Huawei Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. New PCEP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Selection TLV . . . . . . . 14
9.3. New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Restriction Constraint
TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.4. New PCEP TLV: Spectrum Allocation TLV . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.5. New No-Path Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.6. New Error-Types and Error-Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.7. New Error-Values for Existing Error Type (24) . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Contributor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], [RFC5440]
and [RFC7698].
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Introduction
[RFC4655] defines a Path Computation Element (PCE) based path
computation architecture and explains how a Path Computation Element
(PCE) may compute Label Switched Paths (LSP) in Multiprotocol Label
Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
networks at the request of Path Computation Clients (PCCs). A PCC is
said to be any network component that makes such a request and may
be, for instance, an Optical Switching Element within a Wavelength
Division Multiplexing (WDM) network. The PCE, itself, can be located
anywhere within the network, and may be within an optical switching
element, a Network Management System (NMS) or Operational Support
System (OSS), or may be an independent network server.
The PCE communications Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol
used between a PCC and a PCE, and can also be used between
cooperating PCEs. [RFC4657] sets out the common protocol
requirements for PCEP. Additional application-specific requirements
for PCEP are deferred to separate documents.
[RFC8780] provides the PCEP extensions for the support of Routing and
Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON) based on the requirements specified in [RFC6163] and
[RFC7449].
To allow efficient allocation of optical spectral bandwidth for
systems that have high bit-rates, the International Telecommunication
Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has extended
its Recommendations [ITU-T_G.694.1] to include a new Dense Wavelength
Division Multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal
central frequencies, channel spacings, and the concept of the
"frequency slot". In such an environment, a data-plane connection is
switched based on allocated, variable-sized frequency ranges within
the optical spectrum, creating what is known as a flexible grid
(flexi-grid). [RFC7698] provides Framework and Requirements for
GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
The terms "Routing and Spectrum Assignment" (RSA) is introduced in
[RFC7698] to refer to the process determines a route and frequency
slot for an LSP. Hence, when a route is computed, the spectrum
assignment process determines the central frequency and slot width.
The term "Spectrum Switched Optical Networks" is also introduced in
[RFC7698] to refer to a flexi-grid enabled DWDM network, which can be
controlled by a GMPLS or PCE control plane.
This document provides PCEP extensions to support RSA in Flexi-grid
networks.
Figure 1 shows one typical PCE based implementation, which is
referred to as the Combined Routing and Spectrum Assignment (RSA)
[RFC7698]. With this architecture, the two processes of routing and
spectrum assignment are accessed via a single PCE. This architecture
is the base architecture from which the PCEP extensions are specified
in this document.
+----------------------------+
+-----+ | +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |Routing| |SA| |
| PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |
+-----+ | PCE |
+----------------------------+
Figure 1: Combined Routing and Spectrum Assignment Architecture
4. 4. Spectrum Assignment (SA) Object
This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP [RFC8779] for
generic property such as label, label-set and label assignment noting
that frequency is a type of label. Frequency restrictions and
constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per [RFC7579].
Spectrum allocation can be performed by the PCE by different means:
* By means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE allocates
which label to use for each interface/node along the path.
* By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of
potential frequency slots to allocate by each node along the path.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
Option (b) allows distributed spectrum allocation (performed during
signaling) to complete spectrum assignment. Additionally, given a
range of potential spectrums to allocate, a PC Request SHOULD convey
the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation.
The format Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) [RFC5511] of a PCReq
message per [RFC5440] after incorporating the Spectrum Assignment
(SA) object is as follows:
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec-list>]
<request-list>
Where:
<request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
<request>::= <RP>
<GENERALIZED ENDPOINTS>
[ <SA> ]
[other optional objects...]
If the SA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after
the GENERALIZED ENDPOINTS object.
SA Object-Class is (TBD1) (To be assigned by IANA). SA Object-Type
is 1.
The format of the Spectrum Assignment (SA) object body is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frequency-Slot Selection TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frequency-Slot Restriction Constraint TLV |
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: SA Object
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
Reserved (16 bits)
Flags (16 bits)
One Flag bit is allocated as follows:
M (Mode - 1 bit): M bit is used to indicate the mode of spectrum
assignment. When M bit is set to 1, this indicates that the spectrum
assigned by the PCE must be explicit. That is, the selected way to
convey the allocated spectrum is by means of Explicit Label Control
(ELC) [RFC4003] for each hop of a computed LSP. Otherwise, the
spectrum assigned by the PCE needs not be explicit (i.e., it can be
suggested in the form of label set objects in the corresponding
response, to allow distributed SA. In such case, the PCE MUST return
a Label Set Field as described in Section 2.6 of [RFC7579] in the
response. See Section 5 of this document for the encoding discussion
of a Label Set Field in a PCRep message.
4.1. Frequency-Slot Selection TLV
The Frequency-Slot Selection TLV is used to indicate the frequency-
slot selection constraint in regard to the order of frequency-slot
assignment to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied when
M bit is set in the SA Object specified in Section 4. This TLV
SHOULD NOT be present and MUST be ignored when the M bit is cleared.
The Frequency-Slot Selection sub-TLV value field is defined as:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| FSA Method | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Frequency-Slot Assignment (FSA) Method (7 bits):
* 0: unspecified (any); This does not constrain the SA method used
by a PCC This value is implied when the Frequency-Slot Selection
sub-TLV is absent.
* 1: First-Fit. All the feasible frequency slots are numbered
(based on 'n' parameter), and this SA method chooses the available
frequency-slot with the lowest index, where 'n' is the parameter
in f = 193.1 THz + n x 0.00625 THz where 193.1THz is the ITU-T
'anchor frequency' and 'n' is a positive integer including 0
[RFC7698].
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
* 2: Random. This SA method chooses a feasible frequency-slot value
of 'n' randomly.
* 3-127: Unassigned.
S (Symmetry, 1 bit): This flag is only meaningful when the request is
for a bidirectional LSP (see [RFC5440]).0 denotes requiring the same
frequency-slot in both directions; 1 denotes that different spectrums
on both directions are allowed.
IANA is to allocate a new PCEP TLV type, Frequency-Slot Selection TLV
(TBD2) in the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
If a PCE does not support the attribute(s), its behavior is specified
below:
* S bit clear not supported: a PathErr MUST be generated with the
Error Code "Routing Problem" (24) with error sub-code "Unsupported
Frequency slot Selection Symmetry value" (TBD3).
* FSA method not supported: a PathErr MUST be generated with the
Error Code "Routing Problem" (24) with error sub-code "Unsupported
Frequency Slot Assignment value" (TBD4).
4.2. Frequency-slot Restriction Constraint TLV
For any request that contains a Frequency-slot assignment, the
requester (PCC) must be able to specify a restriction on the
frequency-slots to be used. This restriction is to be interpreted by
the PCE as a constraint on the tuning ability of the origination
laser transmitter or on any other maintenance related constraints.
The format of the Frequency-Slot Restriction Constraint TLV is as
follows:
<Frequency-lot Restriction Constraint> ::=
(<Action>
<Link Identifiers> <Freq-slot Restriction>)...
Where
<Link Identifiers> ::= <Link Identifier> [<Link Identifiers>]
See Section 4.3.1 in [RFC8780] for the encoding of the Link
Identifiers Field.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
IANA is to allocate a new PCEP TLV, the Frequency slot Restriction
Constraint TLV type (TBD5). This TLV MAY appear more than once to be
able to specify multiple restrictions. The TLV data is defined as
follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Count | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifiers |
| . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frequency Slot Restriction Field |
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Spectrum Restriction Constraint TLV Encoding
* Action: 8 bits.
- 0 - Inclusive List indicates that one or more link identifiers
are included in the Link Set. Each identifies a separate link
that is part of the set.
- 1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a range
of links. It contains two link identifiers. The first
identifier indicates the start of the range (inclusive). The
second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive).
All links with numeric values between the bounds are considered
to be part of the set. A value of zero in either position
indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding portion
of the range. Note that the Action field can be set to 0 when
unnumbered link identifier is used.
* Count: The number of the link identifiers (8 bits)
* Reserved: Reserved for future use (16 bits)
* Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction is
applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count
field. See Section 4.3.1 in [RFC8780] for Link Identifier
encoding.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
Note that a PCC MAY add a frequency slot restriction that applies to
all links by setting the Count field to zero and specifying just a
set of frequency slots.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
type.
4.2.1. Frequency-Slot Restriction Field
The Frequency-Slot Restriction Field of the Frequency slot
restriction TLV is encoded as defined in section 4.2 of [RFC8363].
5. Encoding of a RSA Path Reply
This section provides the encoding of a RSA Path Reply, in the PCRep/
PCUpd message, for frequency slot allocation as discussed in
Section 4. Spectrum Allocation TLV IANA is to allocate a new PCEP
TLV type, the Spectrum Allocation TLV type (TBD6). The TLV data is
defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier |
| . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Allocated Spectrum(s) |
// . . . . //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Spectrum Allocation TLV Encoding
* Type (16 bits): The type of the TLV.
* Length (15 bits): The length of the TLV including the Type and
Length fields.
* M (Mode): 1 bit
- 0 indicates the allocation is under Explicit Label Control.
- 1 indicates the allocation is expressed in Label Sets.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
* Link Identifier (variable): Identifies the interface to which
assignment spectrum(s) is applied. See Section 3.3 for Link
Identifier encoding.
* Allocated Spectrum(s) (variable): Indicates the allocated
spectrum(s) to the link identifier. See Section 3.3.1 for
encoding details.
* Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction is
applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count
field. See Section 4.3.1 in [RFC8780] for Link Identifier
encoding.
Note that all link identifiers in the same list must be of the same
type.
This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is
carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RFC7570].
5.1. Error Indicator
To indicate errors associated with the RSA request, a new Error Type
(TDB) and subsequent error-values are defined as follows for
inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object:
A new Error-Type (TBD7) and subsequent error-values are defined as
follows:
* Error-Type=TBD7; Error-value=1: if a PCE receives a RSA request
and the PCE is not capable of processing the request due to
insufficient memory, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a
PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB) and an Error-value(Error-
value=1). The PCE stops processing the request. The
corresponding RSA request MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
* Error-Type=TBD7; Error-value=2: if a PCE receives a RSA request
and the PCE is not capable of RSA computation, the PCE MUST send a
PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TDB) and an
Error-value (Error-value=2). The PCE stops processing the
request. The corresponding RSA computation MUST be cancelled at
the PCC.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
5.2. NO-PATH Indicator
To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find RSA for the
path request, the NO-PATH object can be used in the corresponding
response. The format of the NO-PATH object body is defined in
[RFC5440]. The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide
additional information about why a path computation has failed.
One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the
NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.
* Bit TBD8: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible route was found
that meets all the constraints (e.g., spectrum restriction, etc.)
associated with RSA.
6. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of flexi-grid Routing and Spectrum Assignment (RSA)
with PCE must address the following considerations:
6.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
* The ability to send a Flexi-Grid RSA request.
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
* The support for Flexi-Grid RSA.
* A set of Flexi-Grid RSA specific policies (authorized sender,
request rate limiter, etc).
These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any PCEP
session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a specific
session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of sessions with a
specific group of PCEP peers.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
6.2. Information and Data Models
Extensions to the PCEP YANG module may include to cover the Flexi-
Grid RSA information introduced in this document. Liveness Detection
and Monitoring Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any
new liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to
those already listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
6.3. Verifying Correct Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new verification
requirements in addition to those already listed in section 8.4 of
[RFC5440].
6.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) may be used to
advertise Flexi-Grid RSA path computation capabilities to PCCs. This
draft has requirements on other protocols (ERO objects, etc. which
are under TEAS or CCAMP.).
6.5. Impact on Network Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
operation requirements in addition to those already listed in section
8.6 of [RFC5440].
7. Implementation Status
[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: This whole section and the reference to
[RFC7942] is to be removed before publication as an RFC]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
According to [RFC7942]], "this will allow reviewers and working
groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit
of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit".
7.1. Huawei Technologies
At the time of posting the -10 version of this document, Huawei has
implemented some of the features specified in this document, on the
WDM network. Details could be as follow:
Organization: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Implementation: Huawei's WDM systems
Description: supporting PCE Protocol with WDM extensions
Maturity Level: supported features
Coverage: Partial
Contact: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
8. Security Considerations
This document has no requirement for a change to the security models
within PCEP. However, the additional information distributed in
order to address the RSA problem represents a disclosure of network
capabilities that an operator may wish to keep private.
Consideration should be given to securing this information.
9. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
objects and sub-registries defined in this document.
9.1. New PCEP Object
As described in Section 4.1, a new PCEP Object is defined to carry
frequency-slot assignment related constraints. IANA is to allocate
the following from 'PCEP Objects' sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects):
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
Object Class Name Object Reference
Value Type
-----------------------------------------------------------
TBD1 SA 1: Spectrum Assignment [This.I-D]
9.2. New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Selection TLV
As described in Sections 4.2, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
spectrum selection constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the 'PCEP TLV Type Indicators' subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD2 Spectrum Selection [This.I-D]
9.3. New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Restriction Constraint TLV
As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
wavelength restriction constraints. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
from the 'PCEP TLV Type Indicators' subregistry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
indicators).
Value Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD5 Frequency Slot Restriction [This.I-D]
Constraint
9.4. New PCEP TLV: Spectrum Allocation TLV
As described in Section 5, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate the
allocation of freq-slots(s) by the PCE in response to a request by
the PCC. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type
Indicators" subregistry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/
pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-indicators).
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
Value Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD6 Spectrum Allocation [This.I-D]
9.5. New No-Path Reasons
As described in Section 4.3, a new bit flag are defined to be carried
in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH
Object. This flag, when set, indicates that no feasible route was
found that meets all the RSA constraints (e.g., spectrum restriction,
signal compatibility, etc.) associated with a RSA path computation
request.
IANA is to allocate this new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR
TLV Flag Field" subregistry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/
pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv).
Bit Description Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD8 No RSA constraints met [This.I-D]
9.6. New Error-Types and Error-Values
As described in Section 5.1, new PCEP error codes are defined for
WSON RWA errors. IANA is to allocate from the 'PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Types and Values' sub-registry
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object)
Error- Meaning Error-Value Reference
Type
---------------------------------------------------------------
TBD7 Flexi-Grid RSA Error 1: Insufficient [This.I-D]
Memory
2: RSA computation [This.I-D]
Not supported
9.7. New Error-Values for Existing Error Type (24)
As discussed in Section 4.1, two new PathErr values for the Existing
Error Type (24) are to be allocated:
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
Meaning Error-Value Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unsupported Frequency slot TBD3 [This.I-D]
Selection Symmetry value
Unsupported Frequency Slot TBD4 [This.I-D]
Assignment value
10. Acknowledgements
TBD
11. Contributor's Address
TBD
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Control", RFC 4003, DOI 10.17487/RFC4003, February 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4003>.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088,
January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089,
January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
12.2. Informative References
[ITU-T_G.694.1]
ITU-, T., "SERIES G: TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS AND MEDIA,
DIGITAL SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS; Digital networks; Spectral
grids for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid", ITU-T
Rec. G.694.1 , October 2020,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.694.1>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J.L. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[RFC7449] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Martensson, J., Takeda,
T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Gonzalez de Dios, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network
(WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7449, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449>.
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
[RFC7570] Margaria, C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B.
Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7570, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570>.
[RFC7579] Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
J. Han, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for
GMPLS-Controlled Networks", RFC 7579,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7579, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7579>.
[RFC7698] Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Casellas, R., Ed., Zhang, F.,
Fu, X., Ceccarelli, D., and I. Hussain, "Framework and
Requirements for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks",
RFC 7698, DOI 10.17487/RFC7698, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7698>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8363] Zhang, X., Zheng, H., Casellas, R., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in Support of
Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM)
Networks", RFC 8363, DOI 10.17487/RFC8363, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8363>.
[RFC8779] Margaria, C., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., and F.
Zhang, Ed., "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS", RFC 8779,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8779, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8779>.
[RFC8780] Lee, Y., Ed. and R. Casellas, Ed., "The Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for
Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and
Wavelength Assignment (RWA)", RFC 8780,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8780, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8780>.
Authors' Addresses
Young Lee
Samsung
Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid July 2024
Haomian Zheng
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Ramon Casellas
CTTC
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Ricard Vilalta
CTTC
Email: ricard.vilalta@cttc.es
Daniele Ceccarelli
Cisco
Email: dceccare@cisco.com
Francesco Lazzeri
Ericsson
Email: francesco.lazzeri@ericsson.com
Lee, et al. Expires 6 January 2025 [Page 19]